战后新古典经济学反思:从一般均衡理论到新微观经济理论的转变

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES
Yuan Gao
{"title":"战后新古典经济学反思:从一般均衡理论到新微观经济理论的转变","authors":"Yuan Gao","doi":"10.1177/00977004211054844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The theoretical focus of neoclassical economics experienced a significant change in the 1970s–1980s. General equilibrium theory lost its dominant position in theoretical economic studies, with its role of setting the research agenda taken over by what this article calls the “new microeconomic theories,” principally decision theory, game theory, and mechanism design. Mainstream economists, post-Keynesians, and historians of economic thought each give a different explanation of the hows and whys of that change, but all miss some critical methodological implications. That change, as this article discusses, shows that neoclassical economics has turned from “grand theory” toward “small models” with empirically delimited utility and that the ideology of marketism lacks a valid scientific foundation. This interpretation can help illuminate the deeper dynamics of the postwar development of neoclassical economics and provide insights for a new political economy that can come to grips with political-economic practices that cannot be fully grasped by the neoclassical tradition.","PeriodicalId":47030,"journal":{"name":"Modern China","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Reflection on Postwar Neoclassical Economics: The Shift from General Equilibrium Theory to the New Microeconomic Theories\",\"authors\":\"Yuan Gao\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00977004211054844\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The theoretical focus of neoclassical economics experienced a significant change in the 1970s–1980s. General equilibrium theory lost its dominant position in theoretical economic studies, with its role of setting the research agenda taken over by what this article calls the “new microeconomic theories,” principally decision theory, game theory, and mechanism design. Mainstream economists, post-Keynesians, and historians of economic thought each give a different explanation of the hows and whys of that change, but all miss some critical methodological implications. That change, as this article discusses, shows that neoclassical economics has turned from “grand theory” toward “small models” with empirically delimited utility and that the ideology of marketism lacks a valid scientific foundation. This interpretation can help illuminate the deeper dynamics of the postwar development of neoclassical economics and provide insights for a new political economy that can come to grips with political-economic practices that cannot be fully grasped by the neoclassical tradition.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern China\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern China\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00977004211054844\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern China","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00977004211054844","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

新古典经济学的理论重心在20世纪70年代至80年代发生了重大变化。一般均衡理论失去了其在理论经济学研究中的主导地位,其设定研究议程的角色被本文所称的“新微观经济理论”所取代,主要是决策理论、博弈论和机制设计。主流经济学家、后凯恩斯主义者和经济思想史学家各自对这种变化的方式和原因给出了不同的解释,但都错过了一些关键的方法论含义。正如本文所讨论的那样,这一变化表明,新古典经济学已经从“大理论”转向了“小模型”,其效用由经验界定,市场主义意识形态缺乏有效的科学基础。这种解释有助于阐明新古典经济学战后发展的更深层次的动态,并为新政治经济学提供见解,这种新政治经济学可以处理新古典传统无法完全掌握的政治经济实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Reflection on Postwar Neoclassical Economics: The Shift from General Equilibrium Theory to the New Microeconomic Theories
The theoretical focus of neoclassical economics experienced a significant change in the 1970s–1980s. General equilibrium theory lost its dominant position in theoretical economic studies, with its role of setting the research agenda taken over by what this article calls the “new microeconomic theories,” principally decision theory, game theory, and mechanism design. Mainstream economists, post-Keynesians, and historians of economic thought each give a different explanation of the hows and whys of that change, but all miss some critical methodological implications. That change, as this article discusses, shows that neoclassical economics has turned from “grand theory” toward “small models” with empirically delimited utility and that the ideology of marketism lacks a valid scientific foundation. This interpretation can help illuminate the deeper dynamics of the postwar development of neoclassical economics and provide insights for a new political economy that can come to grips with political-economic practices that cannot be fully grasped by the neoclassical tradition.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Modern China
Modern China AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Published for over thirty years, Modern China has been an indispensable source of scholarship in history and the social sciences on late-imperial, twentieth-century, and present-day China. Modern China presents scholarship based on new research or research that is devoted to new interpretations, new questions, and new answers to old questions. Spanning the full sweep of Chinese studies of six centuries, Modern China encourages scholarship that crosses over the old "premodern/modern" and "modern/contemporary" divides.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信